I agree with you that the U.S. policy would be very different…and very much better…if Powell was in charge. Here is an interesting article though in The American Prospect about Powell. It’s kind of hard to summarize what they say in a sound-bite but their basic point is that Powell has indeed been marginalized in this Administration but it is at least partly because of some of his own deficiencies that Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. were able to effectively out-maneuver him.
I’ve gone through a bunch of speeches and addresses - not exactly with a fine tooth comb - made before the war and during the first couple of weeks.
Y’all should try it, it’s interesting. Go to Whitehouse.gov, pick a month and have at it.
Anyway, I couldn’t find an instance where Bush mentioned that the war and it’s aftermath would be easy or short. In fact he reiterated that the duration is unknowable. As far as I can tell, Bush himself never made the claim that it would be easy. He did wax a little rosy about a liberated Iraq, but didn’t say it would be easy.
That wasn’t his job.
His job was to scare the shit out of everybody with reams of WMD talk topped off by
It was the guys who are supposed to know how easy it may or may not be - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney - who said it was going to be easy.
For a rundown go here.
So yeah, Bush himself didn’t say it was going to be easy (and cheap at $1.7 billion dollars. Hell, it’ll pay for itself!). But others at the top of his administration sure did. Some may think that lets Bush off the hook. It doesn’t.
Good thread over at Billmon on Bush’s press conference performance (Link)
Also (and pretty funny to boot):
Okay, well it kind of matches what you said, except for the part where it doesn’t. You gave the impression, since that was the only thing you listed, that that was what Kerry’s position was. But perhaps I am picking nits, since I agree with the basic premise that intelligence and law enforcement should be our primary weapons against terrorism, and military efforts secondary.
How about one from Cheney?
Come on, RTFirefly. You originally said
He never said that. In fact, he said that opposite.
The statements you’ve quoted don’t say that, and don’t even approach that. The statement by Cheney proved to be true in some areas, and false in many others, but has no bearing on the ease with which liberation and reconstruction would take place. Similarly, Perle’s quote was about the strength of Iraq’s military, and proved to be true. The quote by Adelman is completely irrelevant because he’s not a government official, and certainly doesn’t speak for the Bush Admin.
Are you suggesting that terrorist organizations would give up using terror as a means of addressing their political concerns after they successfully use terror to come into power?
You can certainly argue that, but I’ve seen no evidence that it’s true.
Yes, I think it would have worked out worse. Democracy doesn’t work from a standing start. To use your example of the founding fathers in America, they had a number of years where they didn’t have self rule (governors were appointed by England) immediately preceding their independence. During those years, they clamored for independence, published things like the Federalist Papers, formed alliances, argued, discussed, bargained, wrote the Articles of Confederation, tried it for a couple of years, figured out that it didn’t work, argued and discussed things some more, wrote the Constitution, wrote some amendments, argued and voted, and otherwise laid the groundwork for a democracy. It wasn’t an overnight switch to democracy. It took years and years.
Meanwhile, the coalition is trying to make the switch as soon as possible for a nation that has never had self-rule. I think that’s a mistake. I think the June deadline should be pushed back. I think we should give the country more time to become accustomed to policing themselves and living without Saddam making all their decisions for them. I don’t think the act of voting is nearly as important as the act of living with freedom and becoming educated.
It’s ridiculous because you seem to think that most Americans didn’t realize the war and occupation could take more than a year. I’d argue that most Americans aren’t idiots. I’d argue that most Americans realized it could take a while, and that it could have been even more difficult than it has been. For example, many Americans thought Saddam had chemical or nuclear weapons he’d use against American troops, and even America itself. Many Americans thought the war would “inflame the Arab Street.” Many Americans seemed to think we would never beat the Iraqi army . . . I seem to specifically remember the word “Quagmire” being bandied about loosely. I also seem to remember some hysterical screaming coming from the anti-war crowd about how difficult this war was going to be.
In fact, most Americans were aware that the war could go poorly, or that the occupation could go poorly. Your insinuation that Bush should have specifically warned Americans of this danger implies that they were unable to figure it out for themselves. I think they probably figured it out for themselves. I don’t think you give average Americans enough credit.
I always assumed that meant that “Conflict in Iraq will be quicker and/less costly than most wars in the past.”
What standard of comaprison were you using?